TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (4) TMI 2219
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....was right in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 2,87,12,120/- as unexplained cash deposited in bank accounts without considering the facts that the assessee failed to reconcile the cash deposit of Rs. 2,87,12,210/-. 2. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was right in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,71,925 as difference in capital account as unexplained cash credit into books of assessee u/s 68 of the IT Act, without considering the facts that the difference of Rs. 171925/- could not be explained by the assessee. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) was right in law as well as on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submissions. The Assessing Officer on the basis of AIR & CIB information, held that total cash deposit into bank a/c's should be Rs. 21,47,02,666/- whereas the assessee deposited only Rs. 18,59,90,456/- in Axis Bank saving account, thus the difference amount of Rs. 2,87,12,210/- is unexplained and added to the total income. The appellant has explained that both AIR & CIB information have been drawn from assessee's Saving Bank A/c No. 910010029302353 with Axis Bank, Durgapur Branch. The appellant has also uploaded the copies/ summary of all current, saving and overdraft bank accounts and cash flow statement to substantiate his claim. I have carefully verified....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... u/s.68 of the Act and added the same to the total income of the assessee. 6. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has introduced capital of Rs. 11,87,000/- in the bank account of the assessee, however, in the balance sheet, the assessee disclosed the amount of capital introduction at Rs. 13,58,925/- and hence, a difference of Rs. 1,71,925/- which was not explained by the assessee, and was added to the total income of the assessee u/s.68 of the Act treating the same as unexplained cash credit. 7. In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT(A) after taking into account the contention and submissions of the assessee deleted the addition by observing and holding as under :- 5.2. I have cons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y reason to interfere with the order of the ld. CIT(A) and therefore uphold the same. Thus, ground No.2 is dismissed. 9. In ground No.3, the issue raised is against the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting the addition of Rs. 29,55,960/- which was made by the AO on account of commission received from the HPCL. 10. Facts in brief are that during the year the assessee received commission of Rs. 39,62,615/- from HPCL, which was appearing in Form 26AS. The assessee claimed the expenses against the said commissions and disclosed the net income of Rs. 7,06,655/-. The AO by misconstruing the facts issued show cause notice to the assessee as to why that commission to Rs. 39,62,615/- received from HPCL should not be treated as income in the ha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....& miscellaneous income under the head of income from other sources. 13. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assessee has earned f Rs. 7,96,725/- and Rs. 1,97,680/- which had been credited as interest on FD and miscellaneous income respectively and was duly shown by the assessee in its profit and loss account. However, the AO on wrong understanding of facts treated the same as income from other sources. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed submission explaining the nature of income and the ld. CIT(A) considering the same deleted the said addition after observing and holding as under :- 7.2. I have considered the facts of the case, assessment order and appellant's submi....